Unctuous liberals faking deep love for the First Amendment are a dime a dozen right now, what with their educational spawn on U.S. campuses turning out to be every bit as totalitarian as they taught them to be.

And, yeah, I know. Arizona Republic contributor Mike McClellan is a very minor-league example of the genre. But he wrote a classic case study this week depicting why the Left really doesn’t mean it when mumbling their “I cherish free speech” mumbo-jumbo.

So let’s yank him by the collar out from behind the “antifa” crowd he’s helped create.

If you’re going to establish your “Mr. Reasonable” bona fides and argue that even disagreeable people have a right to the public square, quit with the insufferable virtue-signalling pejoratives about what awful human beings they are.

As wicked as they are… as evil as they are… as contemptible as they are… as… Republican as they are… we simply must, for the sake of our own precious nobility, let the heathens speak!

Ann Coulter is “a publicity-seeking shill.” Charles Murray has “written about the alleged genetic inferiority of blacks.” Along with a white nationalist whose bad-guy rep until recently couldn’t raise four figures for that great, liberal fundraising machine, the Southern Poverty Law Center, McClellan says “all three stake out various degrees of putrid points of view.”

Let these intellectual empty vessels speak, he says: “Are they afraid Coulter and Co. will win the day and influence students to adopt their repulsive views?”

Be kind and gentle to these “objectionable folks,” he says: “”Chances are you’ll find them ridiculous, offensive and lacking substance as they present their distorted, often fact-free opinions.”

Let’s remember who McClellan’s audience here is: our darling campus snowflakes, who have learned their sense of unchallengeable nobility from people like McClellan, a retired high-school teacher. Does he really think these charming knowledge-seekers are interested in listening to the arguments of people that even Mr. Reasonable considers “repulsive?”

These very illiberal children of McClellan’s corn already believe very strongly that conservative speakers are repulsive. All conservatives. They believe they’re objectionable. That their points of view are distorted and fact-free (even though, like McClellan in reference to Murray, they don’t know jack, themselves).

What do liberals like him think they’re actually telling to these kids if not to hate the haters? McClellan obviously does.

Does he really think that they make a moment’s distinction between an Ann Coulter and, say, a Heather Mac Donald, who is the country’s most eloquent, fact-based thinker on behalf of cops? Or the Vice President? Because they don’t.

And don’t get me started on this guy’s insultingly disingenuous posture pretending to have just discovered this free-speech hub-bub on campuses (“There apparently is an informal speech police present” on campuses… well, freaking DUH!)

I’m sure that campus unrest dismays the land’s McClellans. It seems to have kinda, sorta dismayed this one. And I’m sure they all have a nostalgic fondness for the First Amendment.

But if you really want to call off the campus hounds, try not to justify every hate-thought they already have.

Phoenix- In a year marked by upheaval, Lotus Contemporary Art, a gallery at 511 E. Roosevelt, presents a rare opportunity to view an exclusive collection of controversial political artwork. Organizers say that in a pivotal election year, political art is highly collectible, and they want to level the field in a liberal leaning industry.

Billed as “Provocative Art 2016”, the public is invited to the show’s opening reception with the artists on Friday, April 22, at 6 PM- 10PM, with an additional showing on Saturday, April 23, from Noon to 3PM.

Richard Bledsoe, a Remodernist painter, writer, and curator who lives in Phoenix, is one of the participating artists. [pullquote align=”left” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]“The establishment art world tends to cater exclusively to politically correct elitists. This is a beautiful show that expresses a view of the culture people typically don’t get to experience.”[/pullquote]

From the delicate “Ballerina Feet” by Sharon McGovern to hard edged, controversial editorial work, organizers say that art lovers can enjoy the beauty and humor of the political art world, as well as talk to artists who refuse to conform to today’s political norms.

“Most of the work at art shows expresses only one side of the spectrum,” said Melissa Dawdy, one of the event’s organizers, “ It’s clear there is a demand for high quality art from the right as well, and Phoenix is a terrific city for a premiere.”

Dawdy says that artists report show invitations are often withdrawn if they reveal any political conservatism. “The establishment ‘culture’ is very punishing to non-conformists. In the creative field there should be room for everyone’s voice.”

Why call the show “provocative”?

“The pendulum,” says Dawdy, “swings back; ‘Piss Christ’ used to be shocking, but what provokes interest today is artwork that that expresses freedom within the context of Western Civilization. [pullquote align=”full” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Artists are planting a flag in the sand, saying “Art is not about conforming to a political view.”[/pullquote]

These are dangerous times in Arizona and across the world. The terror in Paris and San Bernardino are reminders that evil can appear anywhere, and anytime. One of the terrorists in Paris entered Europe embedded in a group of Syrian refugees. One of the killers in California entered the United States under something called a “fiancé visa’, after being radicalized. No matter what precautions we try to take in the U.S. to keep our citizens safe, it seems there will always be criminals and terrorists able to avoid detection.

That’s why I support Governor Ducey’s effort to be sure that Arizona has a say in who is brought here. It will be Arizona taxpayers who will need to help fund these refugee families, and it will be Arizona families who will be harmed if terrorists fall through the vetting cracks and end up in our state. It is Governor Ducey’s responsibility to protect the health, welfare and safety of Arizona’s citizens.

America is a welcoming country, and it will continue to be, but we also must use vigilance and common sense when we determine who can enter our great country. When it comes to Muslim refugees, we should not only base our decision on what is best for us, but what is also best for them.

Many Muslims live under Sharia Law. Islam is a political system as well as a religious system and Sharia Law is at the center of that system. Our Constitutional form of government is in direct opposition. Would they not be happier in a country that better reflects their beliefs? Balancing compassion with common sense would tell America that we should help relocate these refugees in other Muslim countries.

Glenn Beck, through his charity Mercury One, has just relocated 149 Christian refugees from Iraq to Slovakia. Thousands of Americans donated to Beck’s charity to fund the relocation. Since the US is not allowing Christian refugees (why aren’t we???), Beck found a country who would take them. Close to 500 refugees had been planned for relocation, but the United Nations and the European Union put heavy pressure on Slovakia to stop taking the Christian refugees.

In 1980, my Tenney extended family sponsored a Hmong family. That program required fellow Americans to take responsibility in finding housing, employment and all their other needs. The family we helped was a father, mother, three girls and a grandmother. They lived at my mother’s house, and I helped get the girls into school and found a job for the father. These refugees were being targeted because the father had fought on the side of America in the Vietnam War. The Communist governments that took over South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia swept through those countries, killing millions. Today, this family lives in California, and the girls have all graduated and are good productive citizens. It was very rewarding for me to help this family. I am not against helping people in need.

Common sense is needed. Our lives, as well as the lives of the refugees, depend on it.

Event began at 6pm at K O’Donnell’s in Scottsdale (patio area reserved for Breitbart Meetup)

At roughly 6:45/7pm meetup began with AWR Hawkins speaking about the purpose of the group & 2nd amendment issues for about 10 minutes

Mic was handed over to Brandon Darby of Breitbart TX who began speaking about immigration issues and connections between Mexican & US gangs smuggling meth across border for about 5-7 minutes

While Darby was speaking and about to start Q & A, his mic was cut & tv volumes were simultaneously kicked on with the METS/CUBS game sound playing.

ALLEGEDLY less than a handful of people complained about topics discussed at our Meetup to Management, & management allegedly told a Breitbart Rep that “You want to exercise your 2nd Amendment Right? Well I’m authorizing our 1st Amendment right and shutting this down.”

Roughly 15 minutes later (730-7:45-ish) I noticed SDP on the scene, went outside and saw 4 SPD vehicles then a SPD helicopter was flying overhead with spotlight on our location and instructing attendees to ‘please disperse. head to your vehicles’.

Word is that co-owner Jennifer O’Donnell came out to let us know we are not welcome & then kicked shut it down/kicked us out. Others say it was ‘management’, could not confirm who ultimately made the call

Although we cannot confirm at this point whether it was the owner or management who shut us down, it was crystal clear that the ownership affirmed the decision and doesn’t want to serve conservatives. We’re more than happy to oblige.

Breitbart reps confirmed that there will be another meeting announced and will update people via the Meetup page.

Sign up below for more info on the Breitbart MeetUp:

We are Breitbart – Phoenix

Phoenix, AZ 231Happy Warriors

“Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re …

Earlier this week we at ArizonaInformer informed you on CAIR-AZ’s attempt to silence Free Speech by forcing the cancellation of Pamela Geller’s appearance at a Mesa Tea Party event. The attempt turnout to be another Progressive Fail but that is not stopping the Organized Left.

CAIR-AZ President and Hamas apologist Imraan Sadiqqi sent out this email blast to fundraise for what looks to be an Anti-Semitism gala featuring members and fellow travelers from ISNA, the Muslim Student Association as featured speakers.

We have a feeling the event will largely promote the radical Islamist ideology this young woman promotes in this infamous UCSD video:

We will update you on this event as this situation warrants.

ArizonaInformer.com is a new media site with the main purpose to call out bias and activism by the local media, monitor Arizona’s institutional left, and reclaim our rightful place in pop culture. It’s our primary mission to call out local hacks who mask as ‘journalists’, inform Arizonans with the Truth, and amplify the voice of Arizona Citizen Journalists — all with a heavy dose of snark. We are factually correct and proud to be politically incorrect. #War

We received a tip by an astute social media observer that the anti-free-speech group CAIR launched another assault on free speech in Arizona and has enlisted the assistance of local reporters (and Progressive activists) Brahm Resnik and ‘Feathered Bastard’ Stephen Lemons.

Below is a screenshot of the initial call to arms tweet sent out by Imraan Siddiqi, Chairman of CAIR’s AZ Chapter:

This tweet was followed up by unindicted co-conspirator CAIR’s main account calling for the harassment of the High School hosting tonight’s Red Mountain Tea party event.

As of 12:30pm local time, Pamela Geller’s speaking event is still scheduled to go on despite the AstroTurf ginned up by the American political wing of The Muslim Brotherhood in collusion with Arizona’s Democratic Media Complex. You can follow the story by going HERE to Pamela’s Geller site, AtlasShrugs.com

ArizonaInformer.com is a new media site with the main purpose to call out bias and activism by the local media, monitor Arizona’s institutional left, and reclaim our rightful place in pop culture. It’s our primary mission to call out local hacks who mask as ‘journalists’, inform Arizonans with the Truth, and amplify the voice of Arizona Citizen Journalists — all with a heavy dose of snark. We are factually correct and proud to be politically incorrect. #War

I was recently invited for coffee by a close friend and fellow Republican to discuss upcoming state legislative races. Well respected in both local grass roots circles as well as the so called “GOP Establishment,” he was chosen to reach out to me in hopes of convincing me to not get involved in several key legislative primaries. However, by the time we finished our second cup of coffee, he would not only fail to convince me to stay silent, but he would instead volunteer to help me in my efforts to inform GOP voters of the threat to our state. It took a simple history lesson to change his mind.

I take you back to the 46th Legislature. In 2004, a handful of so called “pragmatic” Republicans conspired with Democrats to give then Governor Janet Napolitano a budget that would increase state spending by more than $700 million, a 10% increase in spending in a year that saw little inflation (2%).

Worse yet, that budget created a $500 million budget deficit; in violation of Arizona’s Constitution which requires a balanced budget. Rightfully, fiscal conservatives were outraged at what was clearly an irresponsible budget. In response, conservatives recruited fiscally responsible primary opponents to challenge these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

Then the “GOP Establishment” stepped in. They argued that we risked losing our legislative majorities by running more conservative candidates in the general. Even going as far as saying that even though these “pragmatic” Republicans may have strayed a bit and voted with Democrats for the big spending budget, at least they voted right on things like guns, faith and family issues. They used the old rationale of “even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat any day.” Generally I would agree with that statement, however, it only holds true if those Republicans support the Republican platform and not the Democrat platform. In 2004, there were 39 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate. (In Arizona, you need only control 31 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate to maintain your majority.)

Many of the party faithful bought the establishment’s argument, held their noses and voted for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans “for the good of the Party.” Deep down they hoped these “pragmatic” Republicans would realize the error of their ways and act “more Republican” and fiscally responsible if they got re-elected. As a result, the fiscally conservative challengers were defeated and the “GOP Establishment” candidates got re-elected.

What did voting for the establishment candidate get us? Over the next few years, more and more spending occurred and the budget deficit got bigger, ballooning to over $2.2 billion. Well at least it helped us keep our majorities in the legislature right? Not exactly, in the House the GOP lost six seats and our majority declined to 33 seats; dangerously close to the 31 needed to maintain majority control.

Then in 2008, “Pragmatic Republicans” did it again. Cutting a backroom deal in the dark of night with legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano, four House and four Senate Republicans essentially voted to put Arizona on the verge of Bankruptcy. They left the State with no money in the Rainy Day Fund and a $3 Billion budget deficit. This time conservatives had enough.

A grassroots groundswell of conservative candidates filed to run for the legislature and challenge the big spenders of both parties. Once again the “GOP Establishment” clamored about “party unity, we’re going to lose our majority if we elect conservatives in the primary, think of the big picture and don’t get hung up on a single budget vote, etc.” This time, despite the GOP establishment spending heavily on their “pragmatic” candidates, the GOP primary voters weren’t going to listen.

Fiscal conservatives won primary after primary, soundly defeating establishment candidates in several key races. Instead of lining up behind the party’s nominees, the GOP establishment instead sided with Democrats by undermining conservative candidates in the general election. Establishment lackey and so called “political consultant” Nathan Sproul even penned an open letter to voters stating “In my opinion, the Republican Nominees are not reflective of the overall electorate.” His statement was quickly picked up by Democrats and used in mailers against conservatives.

Despite the “GOP Establishment’s” efforts to torpedo our candidates, we not only kept our majorities in the State House and Senate, but increased them! Keep in mind this was 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected President. Conventional political wisdom predicted a Democrat landslide nationally and the Tea Party was still more than a year from even coming into existence. Arizona was one of only two states in the whole country that saw Republicans add seats to their legislatures. The GOP Establishment was not only WRONG, they were DEAD WRONG.

Then came 2010; “the year of the Tea Party.” Both Establishment GOP candidates as well as Democrats were steam rolled by conservatives. Republicans obtained “Super majorities” in both houses of the legislature and it immediately led to a balanced budget in Arizona, the first in over five years.

Now we’re back to 2014 and here we go again. A new bunch of so-called “Pragmatic Republicans” have again voted with state Democrats to bring Obamacare to Arizona and once again bust the state’s bank by voting for fiscally irresponsible budgets. Where there was once $1Billion in the Rainy Day fund, now there’s essentially nothing. The budget is once again structurally unbalanced and we’re looking at huge deficits again in 2016 and 2017.

So guess what the “Establishment” is saying. Yep, you guessed it: “Don’t primary them, they only voted ‘wrong’ on Obamacare and the budget, but otherwise, they’re still better than Democrats. Don’t primary them for the ‘good of the party’ and so we don’t lose our majorities.“

Well I for one am not buying it. I’m not going to let history repeat itself. These turncoat Republicans, also known as “Legistraitors,” are causing irreparable damage to our states’ fiscal and economic future and they must go. We can’t let the financial disaster of 2004-2008 happen again. Reelecting these “pragmatic” traitors to the platform will spell fiscal disaster for Arizona. Ask yourself, do you want to go through what we had to go through back in 2009-2011? Huge budget cuts, a sales tax increase, selling our Capitol? Heck no!

For a list of these Legistraitors and their relationship to the Coalition of Corruption that is bankrupting Arizona and bringing failed Washington D.C., big government, policies to our state go to The Alliance of Principled Conservatives website at

by Bob Quasius – Liberals in academia are at it again! A year after Condi Rice accepted an invitation to speak at Rutger’s commencement ceremony, liberals launched a nasty smear campaign to humiliate Condi Rice, seeking to force Rutgers to withdraw the invitation.

The Rutgers University administration bravely refused to buckle to pressure. However, in the end Condi Rice decided to put the graduating students’ interests ahead of her own, and bowed out gracefully. She showed us once again that she is a class act. Her statement from her Facebook page puts Rutgers liberals to shame:

“Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time. I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as it’s former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way. Good luck to the graduates and congratulations to the families, friends and loved ones who will gather to honor them.”

It’s not hard to see why Rutgers wold want Condi Rice as their commencement speaker. She’s an awesome speaker! Her commencement speech at SMU was both inspiring and uplifting, as all commencement keynote speeches should be.

It’s also not hard to see why she gracefully bowed out. Commencement is for the graduating seniors, not the speakers. At Princeton University she gave the commencement speech despite objections from liberals, and the result was noisy protests by hundreds.

What was Condi Rice’s offense?

Rutgers liberals demanded the university administration un-invite her in order to humiliate her. What was Condi Rice’s offense that merited public humiliation? The Rutgers Faculty passed a resolution demanding Rutgers un-invite Condi Rice, including phrases like:

“played a prominent role in his administration’s efforts to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the existence of links between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime”, ”

“the lies thus promoted led to the second Iraq war, which caused the death of over 100,000 men, women and children, and the displacement of millions of others.”

“as a public institution of higher learning, should educate its students about past historical events, not pretend they never took place,”

“Rutgers “should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.”

Did Condi Rice Lie About Iraq?

Condi Rice has often been excoriated by liberals for “lying” about Iraq, but did she really intentionally lie? In an interview with NPR in 2011 she admitted she was wrong:

“The intelligence was as clear as any intelligence I’ve ever seen and I’ve been in this business a long time. … When you had intelligence assessments that said Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his biological and chemical weapons and could reconstitute his nuclear weapon in a year if he got foreign assistance — by the end of the decade if he didn’t — I’ve actually never seen clearer indications than that.”

“The problem is, the intelligence wasn’t right.”

However, there’s a huge difference between repeating bad information from others and deliberately lying, as the Faculty resolution states. The National Security Adviser and Secretary of State don’t produce intelligence information; they consume intelligence produced by the intelligence community. Condi didn’t make up lies about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction; she repeated what she was told by the intelligence community.

Moreover, at the time there was certainly a credible belief that Iraq had WMDs as Saddam Hussein had used WMDs in the past, constantly obstructed UN inspectors, and constantly mentioned WMDs in secret communications with his leadership.

Apparently either Saddam Hussein himself believed he still had WMDs or he wanted others, principally the Iranians, to believe he still had a WMD stockpile. There are also credible theories Saddam’s WMDs were quietly sent to Syria for safekeeping.

Is Condi Rice a politician?

The Daily Targum, Rutgers student newspaper, opined those with ‘questionable politics’ should not be invited as commencement speakers. In fact the editorial said they don’t want politicians as commencement speakers at all. ‘Questionable politics’ is liberal doublespeak for “conservative” and moreover politicians are often invited as commencement speakers.

Where was the The Daily Targum and Rutgers Faculty when Elizabeth Warren and other liberals were commencement speakers? Elizabeth Warren is certainly a politician with baggage after misrepresenting herself as Native American to gain affirmative action benefits in academia.

Who gets to decide whose politics are questionable? Condi Rice is widely respected, and has often been prodded to run for public office. However, she’s adamant she doesn’t enjoy politics, explaining:

“I didn’t run for student council president. I don’t see myself in any way in elected office. I love policy. I’m not particularly fond of politics.“

She’s widely admired in Republican circles and would have been a slam dunk as Mitt Romney’s running mate, but she wasn’t even on the list because she didn’t want to run. She’s willing to help Republican candidates in an advisory role, but she is totally disinterested in running for public office.

So Why the Controversy?

Controversy about commencement speakers is nothing new. A survey by the Young America’s Foundation found of the top 100 universities listed by U.S. News and World Report, 62 have selected liberal commencement speakers and only 17 selected conservatives (the ideological leanings of the rest was unclear). Clearly, not many universities are willing to invite conservative commencement speakers!

However, usually conservatives are targeted for protests, though there are exceptions. Obama himself was once targeted, not long after becoming president, but by students, not faculty.

Hillary Clinton has been a commencement speaker numerous times, but how often has academia complained? Hillary Clinton has been embroiled in numerous major scandals, such as Whitewater, turning $100,000 profit on a $1,000 commodities investment despite 1:250 million odds and no knowledge whatsoever of commodities investments. Add to this TravelGate, Vince Foster, and Benghazi and it’s plainly evident Hillary has monumental scandal baggage.

Now why don’t we hear Academics objecting to Hillary Clinton commencement speeches? Answer: she’s a liberal and so too are most academics. Rutgers in particular is a notorious bastion of liberalism in a deep blue state. Ditto for Princeton and Boston University, the scene of other Condi Rice commencement protests.

The truth about Condi Rice

Condi Rice has enjoyed an extraordinary career in academia and in public service. She obviously is extremely bright, as evidenced by earning her PhD in international relations at age 21, despite all the disadvantages of growing up in Birmingham during segregation. She is probably one of our brightest ever Secretaries of State.

This quote reflects Condi’s outlook in life and awesome success despite her humble origins and status as a minority woman:

“The essence of America – that which really unites us – is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion – it is an idea – and what an idea it is: That you can come from humble circumstances and do great things.”

There are no major scandals in Condi Rice’s past, and in the one legitimate are of criticism about the Iraq war she repeated information from others, and in my honest opinion she was misled. At least she’s honest enough to admit she was wrong. However it’s obvious she was misled.

So what? We’ve all been misled at some point in our lives. Does that make her any less of a success story? Not hardly! In truth, she’s a conservative and extremely successful black woman, and that upsets liberal notions of victimhood. It’s no coincidence conservative women and minorities often complain about the unduly harsh scrutiny and criticism they receive from liberals.

Can we get Condi Rice back as Secretary of State?

Sadly, since Condi Rice left office our foreign policy has been in full meltdown. Major wars are brewing in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are two of the worst secretaries of state in U.S. history. Hillary Clinton’s tenure was truly “amateur hour” at the State Department, and John Kerry is proving just as inept.

I would love to see Condi Rice back at the helm at the State Department. However, there’s not much chance Condi will return as long as our incompetent-in-chief, Barack Obama, is president.

About Sonoran Alliance

Arizona's most popular and prominent political blog covering political news and events, commentary and information with a blatantly conservative worldview. We are an alliance of writers, activists, consultants and government insiders.